Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Special Interest Groups

Rating Group: United States Public Interest Research Group

1995-1996 Positions

State Office District Name Party Rating
Edmond Spencer Abraham 6%
Gary Ackerman 84%
Daniel Akaka, Sr. 94%
Wayne Allard 11%
Rob Andrews 68%
Bill Archer 11%
Richard Armey 11%
John Ashcroft 0%
Henry Scott Baesler 42%
Richard Hugh Baker 5%
William Baker 5%
Cass Ballenger 0%
James Barcia 42%
Bob Barr, Jr. 11%
Bill Barrett 11%
Roscoe Bartlett 21%
Charlie Bass 37%
Herbert Bateman 5%
Max Baucus 72%
Anthony Beilenson 100%
Bob Bennett 06%
Kenneth Bentsen, Jr. 68%
Douglas Bereuter 42%
Howard Berman 95%
Tom Bevill 32%
Brian Bilbray 32%
Michael Bilirakis 32%
Jeff Bingaman 78%
Thomas Bliley, Jr. 5%
Peter Blute 53%
Sherwood Boehlert 74%
Kit Bond 0%
Henry Bonilla 5%
David Edward Bonior 89%
Sonny Bono 5%
Robert Borski, Jr. 100%
Rick Boucher 74%
Bill Bradley 89%
John Breaux 33%
Bill Brewster 21%
Glen Browder 32%
George Brown, Jr. 79%
Hank Brown 6%
Richard Bryan 83%
Ed Bryant 5%
John Bryant 84%
Dale Bumpers 100%
Jim Bunn 16%
Jim Bunning 5%
Conrad Burns 0%
Dan Burton 0%
Steve Buyer 5%
Robert Byrd 83%
Herbert Callahan 5%
Ben Campbell 22%
FL Justice of the Supreme Court Charles Canady 11%
Mike Castle 63%
John Chafee 67%
Jim Chapman 26%
Helen Chenoweth-Hage 0%
Jon Lynn Christensen 5%
Dick Chrysler 21%
William Clay, Sr. 95%
Eva Clayton 89%
Robert Clement 53%
William Clinger 5%
William Cohen 78%
Ronald Coleman 79%
Barbara-Rose Collins 63%
Cardiss Collins 79%
Michael Collins 11%
Larry Combest 5%
Gary Condit 32%
Kent Conrad 83%
Wes Cooley 11%
Jerry Costello 74%
Paul Coverdell 6%
Christopher Cox 11%
William Coyne 95%
Larry Craig 0%
Robert Cramer 21%
Philip Crane 11%
Frank Arnold Cremeans 11%
Barbara Cubin 5%
Randall Cunningham 11%
Alfonse D'Amato 17%
Patsy Ann Danner 37%
Thomas Daschle 94%
Thomas Davis III 32%
E. Kika de la Garza 37%
Thomas DeLay 5%
Ronald Dellums 95%
Peter Deutsch 89%
Lincoln Diaz-Balart 32%
Jay Dickey 16%
Norm Dicks 74%
Julian Dixon 89%
Chris Dodd 89%
Pete Domenici, Jr. 11%
Calvin Dooley 21%
John Doolittle 0%
Byron Dorgan 83%
Robert Dornan 16%
David Dreier 5%
Jennifer Dunn 21%
Chet Edwards 42%
Vern Ehlers 47%
Bob Ehrlich, Jr. 26%
Bill Emerson 5%
Philip English 26%
John Ensign 26%
Lane Evans 95%
Terry Everett 0%
Thomas Ewing 16%
Jim Exon 78%
Duncan McLauchlin Faircloth 0%
Harris Fawell 37%
Victor Fazio 53%
Russ Feingold 94%
Cleo Fields 63%
Jack Fields, Jr. 11%
Bob Filner 68%
Floyd Flake 84%
Michael Patrick Flanagan 32%
Thomas Foglietta 100%
Mark Foley 21%
Michael Patrick Forbes 42%
Harold Ford, Sr. 89%
Wendell Ford 67%
Tillie Fowler 21%
Jon David Fox 58%
Barney Frank 89%
Gary Franks 42%
Robert Franks 53%
Dan Frisa 11%
William Frist 6%
Jonas Frost III 53%
David Funderburk 11%
Elizabeth Furse 89%
Elton Gallegly 11%
John Ganske 16%
Sam Gejdenson 95%
George Gekas 5%
Richard Andrew Gephardt 79%
Pete Geren 26%
Sam Gibbons 84%
Wayne Gilchrest 63%
Paul Gillmor 26%
Benjamin Gilman 58%
John Glenn 94%
Henry Gonzalez 58%
William Goodling 26%
Bart Gordon 47%
Slade Gorton 0%
Porter Goss 53%
Daniel Graham 100%
William Phillip Gramm 6%
Rodney Grams 0%
Enid Greene 21%
James Greenwood 63%
Judd Gregg 22%
Steven Gunderson 37%
Gilbert Gutknecht 21%
Tony Hall 79%
Lee Hamilton 47%
Melton Hancock 16%
James Hansen 11%
Jane Harman 68%
J. Dennis Hastert 0%
Mark Hatfield 11%
James Hayes 0%
J.D. Hayworth, Jr. 11%
Joel Hefley 16%
W.G. Hefner 42%
Fredrick Kenneth Fred' Heineman 11%
Jesse Helms 0%
Wally Herger, Jr. 5%
Van Hilleary 11%
Earl Hilliard, Jr. 63%
Maurice Hinchey 100%
David Lee Hobson 21%
Pete Hoekstra 32%
Martin Hoke 26%
Thomas Holden 37%
Ernest Hollings 89%
Stephen Horn 58%
John Nathan Hostettler 11%
Amory Houghton, Jr. 32%
Duncan Hunter 0%
Y. Tim Hutchinson 11%
Kay Hutchison 0%
Henry Hyde 11%
Bob Inglis, Sr. 11%
Daniel Inouye 72%
Ernest Istook, Jr. 21%
Andrew Jacobs, Jr. 84%
William Jefferson 58%
James Merrill Jeffords 72%
Nancy Johnson 47%
Harry Johnston 84%

How to Interpret these Evaluations

Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups often do not represent a non-partisan stance. In addition, some groups select votes that tend to favor members of one political party over another, rather than choosing votes based solely on issues concerns. Nevertheless, they can be invaluable in showing where an incumbent has stood on a series of votes in the past one or two years, especially when ratings by groups on all sides of an issue are compared. Website links, if available, and descriptions of the organizations offering performance evaluations are accessible by clicking on the name of the group.

Most performance evaluations are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. For consistency and ease in understanding, Project Vote Smart converts all scores into a percentage when possible. Please visit the group's website or call 1-888-VOTESMART for more specific information.

Skip to top
Back to top